1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Executive Summary 1-1
|
|
- Luke Gilmore
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Distributed generation and storage technologies are playing an increasing role in the electricity system. As more distributed generation and storage systems improve their cost effectiveness and market acceptance, it will force policy makers, utility managers, and energy planners to make decisions about investing in these technologies. These investment decisions are not straight forward. There is a variety of distributed generation and storage technologies, each with different costs and benefits. In addition, the relationship between who pays and who benefits from investments in these technologies is complex. California s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) has over fourteen years of experience with installation and operation of a variety of distributed generation and storage technologies. Using cost effectiveness calculations, this report describes the costs and benefits of SGIP-eligible technologies from multiple stakeholder perspectives, including participants (Participant Cost Test), utilities (Program Administrator Cost Test), the combined perspective of participants and non-participants (Total Resource Cost Test), and society at large (Societal Total Resource Cost Test). 1 Cost effectiveness analysis can provide a clear and consistent framework for comparing the value of competing distributed generation and storage technologies against one another and against conventional grid resources. Cost effectiveness analysis also explicitly identifies the costs of resources and the associated benefits resulting from their use. The purpose of the 2015 SGIP Cost Effectiveness Study is to deliver a model that can be used in assessing the cost effectiveness of different distributed generation and storage technologies and to provide the results of a cost effectiveness evaluation of those technologies implemented using the model. The focus on this study is on SGIP technologies implemented between 2014 and This study updates and expands on a distributed generation cost effectiveness evaluation completed in January Distributed generation and storage technologies evaluated in this study can be viewed as consisting of a number of different technologies interconnected to the grid in an assortment of ways. However, distributed generation and storage technologies deployed under California s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) make up the focus of this study. For the purposes of this report, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of selected distributed generation and storage technologies eligible under the SGIP as of calendar year For this report, the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and the Societal Total Resource Cost (STRC) Test are calculated using similar inputs except for the discount rate applied to future benefits and costs. The TRC uses the utility s discount rate (7.5%) while the STRC uses a lower, societal discount rate (5%). 2 California Public Utilities Commission, Cost effectiveness of Distributed Generation Technologies, Itron, February 9, Executive Summary 1-1
2 Cost effectiveness of SGIP technologies are evaluated in this study following guidelines set forth in an August 2009 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted decision on cost-benefit methodology for DG technologies COST TESTS FOR SGIP TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION SGIP technology cost effectiveness is evaluated from four perspectives: all utility customers (participants and non-participants), society, participants, and Program Administrators (PAs). 4 Based originally on the cost tests used for evaluating energy efficiency programs, these cost tests have been modified in accordance with the CPUC s 2009 adopted methodology to be applicable to distributed generation and storage technologies. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test treats the program measures as a series of resource options. The test measures the net benefits and costs of a program and/or measure that accrue to all utility customers, both participants and non-participants. The TRC benefits are largely the avoided electric and gas costs, but include federal tax benefits or credits. The TRC costs are the costs associated with program administration, the customer measures, and increased operating costs. The TRC does not include the cost of incentives. The TRC test examines the value of the program as another way to achieve certain utility or policy goals. A positive TRC or a TRC ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the program or measure is estimated to produce a net benefit in the utility territory over the life of the measure. The societal version of the Total Resource Cost (STRC) test looks at the overall cost effectiveness of SGIP technologies to society at large. The societal test is similar to the TRC except it uses the societal discount rate (a lower discount rate than the utility discount rate used in the TRC). 5 If the ratio of the STRC benefitsto-costs exceeds 1.0, the benefits to society exceed the costs in implementing the SGIP technology. Note that the TRC and STRC provide very similar results in this analysis. In California, both the STRC and TRC tests take into account monetary values for emissions. 6 The only difference between the STRC and TRC is the discount rate used in the tests. 7 While the model generates results for both the TRC and STRC, 3 California Public Utilities Commission, Decision Adopting Cost-Benefit Methodology for Distributed Generation, Decision , August The CPUC specifically excludes use of the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test in evaluating the cost effectiveness of DG technologies in its decision on cost-benefit methodology (see D , pg. 25) and that has been expanded to this DG and AES cost effectiveness evaluation. 5 Neither the TRC nor the STRC includes utility incentives as a benefit or a cost. From society s point of view, a rebate is a transfer from one person to another and, therefore, does not change society s benefits or costs. 6 The monetary values for emissions are derived from the E3 Avoided Cost Model dated May, The cost of carbon in this model is based on CO2 prices from the CPUC MPR Forecast. In 2014, the CO2 price is $22.50/ton, increasing to $36.97/ton in The NOx price is $6.40/lb in 2014 and $12.47/lb in The discount rate used in the STRC is 5% and in the TRC is 7.5%. Executive Summary 1-2
3 we focus primarily on STRC results. This has been done so as to remain consistent with the methodology used in the 2011 SGIP cost effectiveness report. The Participant Cost test (PCT) examines the cost effectiveness of the SGIP technology to the participant. Examples of participant benefits include electricity and gas bill savings, favorable tax treatment, or new revenue streams including utility rebates. Participant costs include increased capital outlay associated with the technology, increased operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, and fueling costs. If the benefits outweigh the costs, the technology is considered cost effective to the participant. The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test examines the cost effectiveness of SGIP technologies from the utility perspective (noting that these costs and benefits are passed on to ratepayers). 8 It compares the net costs of participant projects (i.e., the PA costs and incentives) to other supply-side resource options available to the utility. It takes into account the costs incurred by the PAs (including incentive costs) and excludes participant costs. The PAC represents the utility s perspective (and the perspective of the utility s customers) on the net value of implementing the portfolio of projects making up the SGIP. SGIP technologies evaluated under these cost effectiveness tests include technologies eligible under the SGIP through the end of ,10 Taking into account different fuel types, this study examines the cost effectiveness of 31 different configurations of SGIP technologies including stand-alone AES systems, wind turbines, fossil-fueled as well as biogas-fueled internal combustion (IC) engines, microturbines, small-scale gas turbines and fuel cells, pressure reduction turbines (PRT), and Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems. 11 Descriptions of the evaluated technologies, their operating characteristics, and costs are contained in Appendix A. Fossil-fueled technologies, other than all-electric fuel cells, are treated as having combined heat and power (CHP) capabilities. 12 Under the SGIP Handbook guidelines, technologies fueled by directed biogas or onsite biogas are not required to recover waste heat. 13 Consequently, for the cost effectiveness results presented in this report, only the natural gas-fueled technologies are modeled with CHP capabilities. 8 The study does not provide cost effectiveness results for Southern California Gas Company (SCG) even though SCG is very active in the SGIP. Due to the way in which core and non-core gas costs and prices are handled in the model, it is not possible to generate comparable gas-based cost effectiveness results for SCG. 9 The exception is solar photovoltaic (PV), which was eligible as a technology under the SGIP prior to January 1, However, in accordance with CPUC Decision , solar PV technologies were transitioned to the California Solar Initiative effective January 1, Cost effectiveness of solar PV technologies is examined in the CPUC report California Solar Initiative Cost Effectiveness Evaluation, April The 31 different configurations are shown explicitly in Table 3-1 in Section CHP refers to the production of both electric power and heat, which can be used to meet onsite electrical and thermal needs. CHP systems typically use waste heat recovery systems to capture heat generated from the power production process Self-Generation Incentive Handbook, Section 4.2.7, Minimum Operating Efficiency Requirements, pg. 44, January 1, Executive Summary 1-3
4 We have developed an updated cost effectiveness model (the 2014 SGIP Cost Effectiveness Model or 2014 SGIPce ) and use it in assessing cost effectiveness for currently eligible SGIP technologies. The model combines SGIP technology cost, performance, and financial and environmental information along with utility rate and avoided cost information. The model calculates results at the technology level as well as at utility and statewide levels. The cost-benefit results are presented in four different snapshots over time: 2014, 2017, 2020, and Individual cost and benefit components are illustrated in charts and listed in corresponding tables. The data are provided in ways to help identify the underlying causes and trends that produce specific cost effectiveness results. 1.2 KEY FINDINGS Societal Test Results We examine the STRC results of commercial-sector SGIP technologies at two years: 2014 (the current time period) and 2020 (when the SGIP is scheduled to expire). 14 Figure 1-1 illustrates a summary of the STRC results for all the evaluated commercial sector SGIP technologies at 2020 without incentives. Note that the solid horizontal line represents a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0, where an STRC of 1.0 or greater implies that the benefits exceed the costs of the SGIP technology to society. The future path of expected benefits and costs for these technologies, however, is uncertain. Given this uncertainty, and the potential noneconomic benefits associated with facilitating the market for SGIP technologies, it also makes sense to view STRC benefit-cost ratios at a lower threshold. In this instance, we have used a lower STRC threshold of The dotted horizontal line in Figure 1-1 represents the lower STRC benefit-cost ratio of 0.8. Review of the results in Figure 1-1 shows the following:» Nearly all (18 out of 26) of the evaluated SGIP technologies pass the lower STRC benefit-cost ratio of 0.8 by 2020.» SGIP technologies with an STRC benefit-cost ratio less than 0.8 in 2020 include microturbines fueled by natural gas or directed biogas, fuel cells with CHP capabilities fueled by natural gas or directed biogas, the electric-only fuel cells regardless of the fuel source; and the large storage (5 MW) technology. 14 To be consistent with the 2011 Cost Effectiveness study results, we look only at commercial sector results for key findings. Residential sector results are discussed in Section High uncertainty bounds are not unheard of in cost effectiveness analysis. For example, the 2008 California Statewide Potential Study used a TRC test of 85% to determine eligibility for program rebates. The primary focus of the Statewide Potential Study was to develop the gross and net potential estimates for electricity and gas savings in the existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. In general, the uncertainty of energy efficiency measures may be less than the uncertainty of SGIP technologies due to the shorter expected useful life of energy efficiency measures when compared to SGIP technologies. A copy of the 2008 Statewide Potential Study can be downloaded from Executive Summary 1-4
5 » Eight of the evaluated SGIP technologies had STRC benefit-cost ratios greater than 1.0. Factors that contribute to these high STRC benefit-cost ratios include no fueling costs, favorable tax treatment, and additional revenue streams (e.g., Renewable Energy Credits). Detailed results on each technology are provided in Section 6 of the report. Executive Summary 1-5
6 FIGURE 1-1: STATEWIDE SOCIETAL TOTAL RESOURCE COST (STRC) TEST RESULTS WITHOUT INCENTIVES AT 2020 Executive Summary 1-6
7 Participant Cost Test Results The 2014 PCT results are important in that they help identify SGIP technologies that may not currently be cost effective to participants and, therefore, could benefit from incentives to help overcome market risks and barriers. The 2014 SGIPce model generates the costs and benefits necessary to calculate the PCT by SGIP technology, electric investor-owned utility (IOU) service territory, market sector (e.g., residential, commercial, or government/non-profit) and geographical region (i.e., inland or coastal). As with STRC results, detailed PCT results for each evaluated SGIP technology can be found in Section 6 of the report. Figure 1-2 provides a summary snapshot of the PCT results in 2014 for commercial sector SGIP technologies without incentives. Similar to the 2020 STRC results, a solid horizontal line shows the benefitcost threshold of 1.0. However, instead of a dotted line located across the chart at a benefit-cost ratio of 0.8, the PCT dotted line is located at a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.2. Measures with a PCT larger than 1.0 are estimated to have participant benefits greater than their participant costs. Risks and uncertainty may limit adoption of these measures. A higher PCT threshold of 1.2, however, may have sufficiently high benefitcost ratios to help overcome market barriers, risks, and uncertainty borne by participants. Key findings relative to the PCT include the following:» All but six of the SGIP technologies have 2014 PCT benefit-cost ratios less than or equal to 1.2. The technologies that had PCT benefit-cost ratios greater than 1.2 include: > Certain SGIP technologies fueled by onsite biogas, including the 200 kw microturbine, both the 2.5 MW and 7 MW gas turbines, and the 1.5 MW IC engine. > Both PRT and ORC technologies, which have no fueling costs.» SGIP technologies showing the highest PCT benefit-cost ratios are generally those without fueling costs. 16 With the exception of the electric-only fuel cells, this includes all SGIP technologies fueled by onsite biogas, wind energy systems, and PRT and ORC technologies. 16 Natural gas fueled technologies such as the 2.5 MW gas turbine and 1.5 MW IC engine also have high PCT ratios, due largely to increased bill savings tied to lower cost natural gas. Executive Summary 1-7
8 FIGURE 1-2: STATEWIDE PARTICIPANT COST TEST (PCT) RESULTS WITHOUT INCENTIVES AT 2014 Executive Summary 1-8
9 Combined STRC and PCT Results The combined STRC and PCT results provide valuable insights. The combined results identify the cross section of SGIP technologies that potentially provide high benefits to society in 2020 but that may not be cost effective to participants in Figure 1-3 shows the combined 2020 STRC and 2014 PCT results without incentives. A grey border identifies those SGIP technologies with 2020 STRC benefit-to-cost ratios greater than or equal to 0.8 and that also have 2014 PCT benefit-to-cost ratios less than or equal to 1.2. This subset of SGIP technologies represents those SGIP technologies that should ideally be targeted to receiving incentives, having both potentially high societal values in 2020 and facing market barriers in 2014 that may prevent them from achieving those high societal benefits. SGIP technologies that fall into this subset include:» The 500 kw IC engines regardless if fueled by natural gas, directed biogas, or onsite biogas; and the 1.5 MW IC engines fueled by natural gas or directed biogas.» Both the 2.5 MW and 7 MW gas turbine if fueled by natural gas, or directed biogas.» The 500 kw CHP fuel cell fueled by onsite biogas.» The 30 kw AES and the 1.5 MW wind energy technologies. Executive Summary 1-9
10 FIGURE 1-3: COMBINED STATEWIDE 2020 STRC AND 2014 PCT RESULTS WITHOUT INCENTIVES Executive Summary 1-10
11 Results on Modified Internal Rate of Return Modified internal rate of return (MIRR) represents the financial value of investments, with a higher MIRR reflecting a better investment. The 2014 SGIPce model generates MIRR values that correspond to the PCT benefit-cost results. In particular, MIRR values can be produced for each SGIP technology that reflects the financial return to the participant when there is no incentive being provided and at different levels of incentives. In general, higher incentive levels will correspond to higher financial returns to the participant. Policy makers face the question of how much incentive should be provided to different technologies. MIRR analysis helps to provide some insights into how different incentive levels may affect the financial returns to participants. The MIRR analysis allows targeting of incentive levels to help create a level playing field. For technologies with equivalent risks, the MIRR feature of the 2014 SGIPce model can be used to calculate incentive levels that provide the same MIRR for the different SGIP technologies analyzed for this study. Figure 1-4 summarizes the MIRR results that correspond to SGIP technologies without incentives and with levels of incentives expected in SGIP in We have only presented those SGIP technologies that had MIRR values greater than zero without incentives in FIGURE 1-4: COMPARISON OF MIRR FOR SGIP SYSTEMS WITHOUT INCENTIVES AND WITH 2014 INCENTIVES 17 MIRR analyses are inherently tied to existing incentive levels so as to benchmark them. Consequently, we only present MIRR results at 2014 for this summary table. Executive Summary 1-11
12 The dotted line represents the average MIRR value (approximately 10%) across the evaluated SGIP technologies when incentives are not provided. 18 The solid line represents the average MIRR value (approximately 12%) when those same SGIP technologies received incentive levels expected within SGIP in Note that technologies estimated to have a relatively high PCT without incentives (see Figure 1-2) are also shown to have a relatively high MIRR (see Figure 1-4). Policy makers can use the MIRR results to estimate incentive levels for SGIP technologies necessary to reach a given return. If a MIRR value of 12% is determined to be the target level, the SGIPce model can provide a corresponding incentive level that matches the target MIRR. 19 While the MIRR analysis helps identify possible incentive levels that match target MIRR values, ultimately the selection of incentive values is a policy decision that must take into account market risk and uncertainty that cannot be captured accurately by the model. Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Results Figure 1-5 depicts the PAC test results for SGIP systems evaluated at the statewide level for 2014 and The results are weighted by electricity sales for each of the three major electrical IOUs. 20 The 2014 results are presented using SGIP program incentives for 2014 as specified in the SGIP Handbook. The 2020 results use incentive levels forecast out to 2020 based on existing SGIP Handbook guidelines regarding annual declines in incentive levels by technology. The results presented in Figure 1-5 show that all evaluated SGIP technologies other than stand-alone energy storage have PAC benefit-cost ratios significantly higher than 1. These high PAC benefit to cost ratios result largely due to two factors occurring concurrently: high avoided electricity cost benefits being generated at the same time the technology has low or zero fueling costs. 21 As the avoided electricity costs (in the numerator) increase simultaneously with the fuel costs (in the denominator) dropping, the difference creates large benefit to cost ratios. In addition, Figure 1-5 indicates that larger sized technologies in general have higher benefit to cost ratios. This results because the larger technologies provide a disproportionality greater amount of benefit generated for each dollar of incentive paid out to the technology. The SGIP reduces the amount of incentive paid as the rebated capacity of the technology increases. However, the benefits produced and allocated to the SGIP remain proportional to the total rebated capacity. Consequently, the larger sized technologies generate a greater amount of benefits than their smaller counterparts relative to the amount 18 The 10% MIRR does not include the MIRR for technologies whose MIRR is zero or negative without an incentive. The average MIRR is calculated as an arithmetic average giving each technology equal weight. 19 The SGIPce model can generate incentive levels needed to achieve many different MIRR levels. 20 A more complete breakout of the PAC results showing individual PA results is shown in Table 6-10 in the main body of the report. 21 Note that while natural gas prices are currently low and forecast to remain low, we have also assumed that most commercial customers are not purchasing natural gas from the utility but purchasing it through gas marketers or other channels. Executive Summary 1-12
13 of incentive paid to the technology. The net result is that larger capacity SGIP technologies (which generate commensurately higher avoided cost benefits) with low or zero fuel costs and low incentive levels result in very high PAC benefit-to-cost ratios. Stand-alone storage has lower PAC benefit-to-cost ratios. In the case of the modeled 5 MW system, the 2014 and 2020 ratios are 0.81 and 1.10, respectively. For the 30 kw system, the 2014 and 2020 ratios are 0.41 and 0.71, respectively. In general, stand-alone storage shows lower PAC benefit-to-cost ratios due to the lower amount of electricity system benefits (storage is only displacing electricity over a portion of the year and the demand reductions are only pronounced in the SDG&E service territory), there are fueling costs associated with charging the storage system and the incentives paid out to storage tend to be higher than for the other SGIP technologies. FIGURE 1-5: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR COST RESULTS: 2014 AND 2020 (WEIGHTED) 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings from this study, we make the following recommendations:» PAs and CPUC policy makers should consider using a benefit-cost ratio of 0.8 as a threshold for the STRC benefit-cost ratios and a ceiling of 1.2 for the PCT benefit-cost ratio when considering technology eligibility and incentives in the SGIP instead of a ratio of 1.0. Executive Summary 1-13
14 » The cost effectiveness results point to a class of technologies that should be considered for incentives. Incentives provided to SGIP technologies that have 2014 PCT ratios below 1.2 and 2020 STRC ratios equal to or greater than 0.8 provide value to both participants and society. SGIP technologies that meet these criteria include: > Both the 2.5 MW and 7 MW gas turbines fueled by directed biogas or natural gas. > The 500 kw IC engines regardless if fueled by natural gas, directed biogas, or onsite biogas; and the 1.5 MW IC engines fueled by natural gas or directed biogas > The commercial 30 kw stand-alone electric storage technology > The 1.5 MW wind technology.» While the model shows onsite biogas technologies as having PCT results above 1.2 without incentives, these technologies have inherent market risks that are difficult to monetize and are not taken into account in the model. Because these technologies also demonstrate high STRC ratios in 2020, they should be considered for incentive payment to help move the market for these technologies and capture the high societal relative benefits.» IC engines sized at 1,500 kw and gas turbines sized at 2,500 kw fueled by onsite biogas have 2014 PCT estimates slightly higher than 1.2 with 2020 estimates of STRC that exceed 0.8. Similarly, standalone electric storage sized at 5 MW has a 2014 PCT ratio well below 1.2 but a 2020 STRC ratio just barely below 0.8. Given the inherent uncertainty in the value of benefit and cost inputs and forecasts, these technologies should be considered for incentive payment in the SGIP.» The MIRR analysis shows that the average MIRR for SGIP technologies without incentives is 10%. In comparison, the average MIRR for SGIP technologies receiving incentives expected at 2014 levels is 12%. Consequently a MIRR target of 12% may provide a good target for setting SGIP incentive levels as this represents the average MIRR value associated with 2014 incentive levels. Ultimately, setting appropriate incentive levels is a policy decision connected to transforming the distributed generation and storage markets. Executive Summary 1-14
SGIPce 2014: Looking Under the Hood. January 13, 2016 George Simons Tom Mayer Jean Shelton, PhD Itron
SGIPce 2014: Looking Under the Hood January 13, 2016 George Simons Tom Mayer Jean Shelton, PhD Itron TOPICS FOR TODAY S WEBINAR» Introductions» Overview of SGIPce 2014 model Goals and objectives Inputs
More informationCPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program Fifth Year Impact Evaluation Final Report
CPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program Fifth Year Impact Evaluation Final Report Submitted to: PG&E and The Self-Generation Incentive Program Working Group Prepared by: Itron, Inc. 601 Officers Row Vancouver,
More informationPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION
October 10, 2011 Advice No. 22 (California Center for Sustainable Energy) Advice No. 3245-G/3923-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company U 39 M) Advice No. 2637-E (Southern California Edison Company U 338-E)
More informationSelf-Generation Incentive Program Semi-Annual Renewable Fuel Use Report No. 12 for the Six-Month Period Ending June 30, 2008
Self-Generation Incentive Program Semi-Annual Renewable Fuel Use Report No. 12 for the Six-Month Period Ending June 30, 2008 1. Summary The purpose of this report is to provide the Energy Division of the
More informationSelf Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Jason Legner Sr. Program Manager
1 Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Jason Legner Sr. Program Manager SGIP History Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Statewide - California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) incentive program
More informationAcknowledgements... ACK-1
Table of Contents Acknowledgements... ACK-1 1 Executive Summary... 1-1 1.1 Introduction... 1-1 1.2 Results... 1-5 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations... 1-9 Conclusions...1-9 Program Recommendations...1-9
More informationCPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program Ninth-Year Impact Evaluation Final Report (Excluding Appendices)
CPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program Ninth-Year Impact Evaluation Final Report (Excluding Appendices) Submitted to: PG&E and The Self-Generation Incentive Program Working Group Prepared by: Itron, Inc.
More informationCalifornia s Approach to Designing a Net Energy Metering (NEM) Tariff. Sara Kamins California Public Utilities Commission June 18, 2014
California s Approach to Designing a Net Energy Metering (NEM) Tariff 1 Sara Kamins California Public Utilities Commission June 18, 2014 2 California Presentation topics California s energy market and
More informationThe Gambia National Forum on Renewable Energy Regulation: Policy Incentives and Enabling an Environment for Renewable Energy
The Gambia National Forum on Renewable Energy Regulation: Policy Incentives and Enabling an Environment for Renewable Energy Melicia Charles California Public Utilities Commission January 31, 2012 www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/energy/distgen/
More informationCalifornia s Self-Generation Incentive Program: What Is the Consumer Response and Is the CAISO System Peak Load Being Impacted?
California s Self-Generation Incentive Program: What Is the Consumer Response and Is the CAISO System Peak Load Being Impacted? Patrick Lilly, Itron, Inc./RER Alan Fields, Itron, Inc./RER Brenda Gettig,
More informationSelf-Generation Incentive Program Semi-Annual Renewable Fuel Use Report No. 15 for the Six-Month Period Ending December 31, 2009
Self-Generation Incentive Program Semi-Annual Renewable Fuel Use Report No. 15 for the Six-Month Period Ending December 31, 2009 1. Overview Report Purpose This report complies with Decision 02-09-051
More information2012 SGIP Impact Evaluation and Program Outlook
2012 SGIP Impact Evaluation and Program Outlook Submitted to: PG&E and The SGIP Working Group Prepared by: 330 Madson Pl Davis, CA 95618 Feb 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... i LIST OF FIGURES...
More informationSolar Photovoltaic Volumetric Incentive Program 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Solar Photovoltaic Volumetric Incentive Program 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly Prepared by: Oregon Public Utility Commission January 1, 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Background...
More informationIndependent Assessment of Conservation and Energy Efficiency Potential for Connecticut and the Southwest Connecticut Region FINAL REPORT June 2004
Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 1.1 Study Scope...1 1.2 Key Findings...2 1.3 Future Program Investment Scenarios...6 1.4 Present Value of Savings and Costs (in millions of 2003 $)...6 1.5 Definition
More informationCost-benefit Analysis of the New Jersey Clean Energy Program Energy Efficiency Programs
Cost-benefit Analysis of the New Jersey Clean Energy Program Energy Efficiency Programs January 9, 2008 Table of Contents I. Summary...3 II. Methodology...4 III. Cost-Benefit Analysis Assumptions...6 IV.
More informationAEP Ohio. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) May 24 th, 2017 Steve Giles Vice President Alternative Energy Hull & Associates, Inc.
AEP Ohio Combined Heat and Power (CHP) May 24 th, 2017 Steve Giles Vice President Alternative Energy Hull & Associates, Inc. OUR MARKET AREAS Shale Oil & Gas Waste Management PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ASSET
More informationState Incentives for Biomass Products and Power
State Incentives for Biomass Products and Power California Biomass Collaborative 2 nd Annual Forum March 1, 2004 Sacramento Martha Gildart California Energy Commission Renewable Portfolio Standard Program
More informationThe Impacts of the Green Communities Act on the Massachusetts Economy:
The Impacts of the Green Communities Act on the Massachusetts Economy: A Review of the First Six Years of the Act s Implementation Paul J. Hibbard Susan F. Tierney Pavel G. Darling Analysis Group, Inc.
More informationRAC Policy Subcommittee Meeting Northeast Update: TRC Test Applied to CHP in MA & NY 26 January 2011
RAC Policy Subcommittee Meeting Northeast Update: TRC Test Applied to CHP in MA & NY 26 January 2011 Tom Bourgeois, Co-Director of U.S. DOE s Northeast Clean Energy Application Center WHAT are the various
More informationWaste Heat to Power: Emissions Free Power & Industrial Competitiveness
Waste Heat to Power: Emissions Free Power & Industrial Competitiveness Kelsey Southerland Director of Government Relations- TAS Energy Executive Director- The Heat is Power Association ksoutherland@tas.com
More informationActual Performance of CHP DG Systems Installed for Industrial Applications in California
Actual Performance of CHP DG Systems Installed for Industrial Applications in California Kurt Scheuermann, George Simons, Amber Buhl, Myles O'Kelly, and Heidi Ochsner, Itron, Inc. ABSTRACT Combined heat
More informationRecommendations for Reforming Energy Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness Screening in the United States
Recommendations for Reforming Energy Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness Screening in the United States Using the Resource Value Framework to Identify Those Efficiency Programs That Are in the Public Interest
More informationEvaluating Costs of Energy Efficiency Programs
Evaluating Costs of Energy Efficiency Programs South-Central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource Phil Mihlmester, ICF International August 4, 2014 Outline Introduction to ICF Energy efficiency
More informationDEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT MARKET POTENTIAL STUDY. Final Report. Volume 5: Distributed Generation Analysis. Prepared for: Ameren Missouri
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT MARKET POTENTIAL STUDY Volume 5: Distributed Generation Analysis Final Report EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 500 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite 450 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.482.2000
More informationWelcome/Introductions Updates since last meeting/review of DSM program history Energy savings Demand savings Annual spend
September 26, 2017 Agenda Welcome/Introductions Updates since last meeting/review of DSM program history Energy savings Demand savings Annual spend Challenges for future programs Rapid adoption of energy
More informationSB 838: Oregon Renewable Energy Act Establishing an Oregon Renewable Energy Standard
SB 838: Oregon Renewable Energy Act Establishing an Oregon Renewable Energy Standard Section-by-Section Summary SB 838 with -2 Amendments as introduced in Senate Environment Committee, March 15 th, 2007
More informationLevelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012
July 2012 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 This paper presents average levelized costs for generating technologies that are brought on line in 2017 1 as represented
More informationEconomic Analysis of Large Stationary Fuel Cell Value in California
Economic Analysis of Large Stationary Fuel Cell Value in California ICEPAG 2009 February 10, 2009 Newport Beach, California Lori Smith Schell, Ph.D. February 10, 2009 1 Economic Analysis Can Inform Policy
More informationThrough the Looking Glass and What the Analyst Found There: Energy Storage Behind the Meter
Through the Looking Glass and What the Analyst Found There: Energy Storage Behind the Meter Stephan Barsun, Itron William Marin, Itron August 9, 2017 WHAT IS ENERGY STORAGE? The capture of energy produced
More information2014 Self-Generation Incentive Program HANDBOOK
Self-Generation Incentive Program 2014 Self-Generation Incentive Program HANDBOOK Provides financial incentives for installing clean, efficient, on-site distributed generation January 1, 2014 V.1 What
More information2013 Self-Generation Incentive Program HANDBOOK
Self-Generation Incentive Program 2013 Self-Generation Incentive Program HANDBOOK Provides financial incentives for installing clean, efficient, on-site distributed generation February 1, 2013 V.1 What
More informationThe Value of Distributed Photovoltaics to Austin Energy and the City of Austin
The Value of Distributed Photovoltaics to Austin Energy and the City of Austin Electric Utility Commission Resource Management Commission June 26, 2006 Dr. Thomas E. Hoff 1 Clean Power Research Team Members
More informationSB 838: Oregon Renewable Energy Act Establishing an Oregon Renewable Energy Standard
SB 838: Oregon Renewable Energy Act Establishing an Oregon Renewable Energy Standard Section-by-Section Summary SB 838, C-engrossed version As passed by Oregon House of Representatives, May 23 rd, 2007.
More informationSelf-Generation Incentive Program Semi-Annual Renewable Fuel Use Report No. 9 For the Six-Month Period Ending December 31, 2006
1. Purpose of this Report Self-Generation Incentive Program Semi-Annual Renewable Fuel Use Report No. 9 For the Six-Month Period Ending December 31, 2006 The purpose of this report is to provide the Energy
More informationFrom: Keith Casey, Vice President, Market and Infrastructure Development
California Independent System Operator Corporation Memorandum To: ISO Board of Governors From: Keith Casey, Vice President, Market and Infrastructure Development Date: August 18, 2011 Re: Briefing on Renewable
More informationRenewable Rules and Markets: A California Perspective October 2, 2008
Renewable Rules and Markets: A California Perspective October 2, 2008 Nancy Ryan Chief of Staff, Office of Commissioner Peevey California Public Utilities Commission Outline Renewable energy incentives
More informationAn Overview of Eligible SGIP Technologies. March 10, 2010
An Overview of Eligible SGIP Technologies March 10, 2010 Outline SGIP Requirements for Fuel Cells and Fuel Cell Performance SGIP Requirements Wind Turbines and Wind Turbines Performance Advance Energy
More informationFeed-In Tariffs Abroad and in the US. Renewable Energy Markets 2009 Hilary Flynn September 15 th, 2009
Feed-In Tariffs Abroad and in the US Renewable Energy Markets 2009 Hilary Flynn September 15 th, 2009 Feed-In Tariffs Worldwide Source: REN21. (2009). Renewables Global Status Report: 2008 Source: European
More informationRenewable Electricity Procurement in California
Renewable Electricity Procurement in California June 25, 2012 Yuliya Shmidt Division of Ratepayer Advocates, California Public Utilities Commission National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
More informationWhat s New 2009 Self-Generation Incentive Program
What s New 2009 Self-Generation Incentive Program The 2009 Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) handbook includes significant changes resulting from recent CPUC decisions. 1. An additional incentive
More informationVALUING ROOFTOP SOLAR
INTRODUCTION NET ENERGY METERING VALUING ROOFTOP SOLAR ALTERNATIVES TO NEM 1 INTRODUCTION TURN DISTRIBUTED GENERATION 2 TURN A Consumer Advocacy Organization Fighting for Small Ratepayers since 1973 Founded
More informationWhat s New 2015 Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP)
What s New 2015 Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) The2015V3Handbookhasbeenupdatedtoreflectthefollowingchanges: PublicUtilityCommissionDecision1506002toallowallcustomerclassestorequestathirdsix monthextensionofthereservationexpirationdate.
More informationEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Portfolios Annual Evaluation Report (Volume I Executive Summary)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Portfolios 2017 Annual Evaluation Report (Volume I Executive Summary) May 31, 2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: Opinion Dynamics Corporation With Subcontractors: Table
More informationState Policy: Can Feed in Tariffs (FiTs) incent heat recovery in California? Vince McDonell
State Policy: Can Feed in Tariffs (FiTs) incent heat recovery in California? Vince McDonell Feed in Tariff or FiT! Concept: Distributed Generation of electricity can be sold to the grid at a price that
More informationMAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL FOR GAS DSM IN UTAH FINAL REPORT JUNE Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UTAH GAS DSM POTENTIAL...1 1.1 Types of Savings Potential Analyzed...1 1.2 Key Findings...2 1.3 Future Program Investment Scenarios...5 1.4 Present Value of Savings
More informationPASADENA WATER AND POWER MEMORANDUM. August 9, 2016
PASADENA WATER AND POWER MEMORANDUM August 9, 2016 To: Environmental Advisory Committee From: Gurcharan Bawa Interim General Manager Subject: Pasadena Solar Program Updates This report is for information
More informationOutline. Introduction to Wisconsin. Barriers to Generating Electricity from. Incentives and Regulations Intended to
Experience of the United States in the Application of Incentives and Regulations for the Supply of Renewable Energy Chairperson Eric J. Callisto Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 20 May 2010 Outline
More informationSENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY
SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE, No. 2314 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: APRIL 5, 2018 The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee reports favorably Senate Bill No. 2314.
More informationSelf-Generation Incentive Program
Self-Generation Incentive Program Framework for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of the Self-Generation Incentive Program Submitted to: Ms. Valerie Beck California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division
More informationMethodology for calculating subsidies to renewables
1 Introduction Each of the World Energy Outlook scenarios envisages growth in the use of renewable energy sources over the Outlook period. World Energy Outlook 2012 includes estimates of the subsidies
More informationState Experiences with Financial Incentives to Promote Clean Distributed Energy: Greenhouse Gas Reductions with CHP
State Experiences with Financial Incentives to Promote Clean Distributed Energy: Greenhouse Gas Reductions with CHP Tom Bourgeois and Chris Young, Pace University Energy Project ABSTRACT Many states have
More informationCPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program. Optimizing Dispatch and Location of Distributed Generation
CPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program Optimizing Dispatch and Location of Distributed Generation Submitted to: PG&E and The Self-Generation Incentive Program Working Group Prepared by: Itron, Inc. 60
More informationEnergy & Emissions Strategic Plan. Executive Summary. Encina Wastewater Authority. April Prepared for
Energy & Emissions Strategic Plan Executive Summary April 2011 Prepared for Encina Wastewater Authority Executive Summary Section 1: Introduction The Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) is a Joint Powers
More informationAn Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Storage in South Africa. by Jeremy Hargreaves, Energy & Environmental Economics
An Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Storage in South Africa by Jeremy Hargreaves, Energy & Environmental Economics USTDA/IDC Storage Assessment IDC commissioned the South Africa Energy Storage Technology
More informationDISTRIBUTED GENERATION POTENTIAL STUDY FOR PENNSYLVANIA
ITC DISTRIBUTED GENERATION POTENTIAL STUDY FOR PENNSYLVANIA Prepared for: PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Final Report March 2015 Prepared by: Statewide Evaluation Team Intentionally Left Blank
More informationBenefits and Costs of Energy Efficiency. Service Department
Benefits and Costs of Energy Efficiency Walter (TJ) Poor, Vermont Public Service Department December 3, 2014 Topics Benefits of Energy Efficiency Screening Programs for Cost-Effectiveness Integrating Energy
More informationCalifornia s Approach to Designing a Feed-in Tariff. Sara Kamins California Public Utilities Commission June 19, 2014
California s Approach to Designing a Feed-in Tariff 1 Sara Kamins California Public Utilities Commission June 19, 2014 California Public Utilities Commission: About Us Regulates privately owned electric,
More informationCost-Benefit Analysis of the 2007 New Jersey Clean Energy Program Energy Efficiency Programs. Summary Report
Cost-Benefit Analysis of the 2007 New Jersey Clean Energy Program Energy Efficiency Programs Summary Report March 2010 Center for Energy, Economics & Environmental Policy Edward J. Bloustein School of
More informationVermont Department of Public Service and Vermont Department of Taxes. January 15, Authorization
Report on the Valuation of Renewable Energy Property To The House Committees on Ways and Means, Commence and Development and Natural Resources and Energy and the Senate Committees on Finance, Economic
More informationRenewable Energy in California Building Livable Communities: Creating Resilient and Sustainable Economies
Renewable Energy in California Building Livable Communities: Creating Resilient and Sustainable Economies JR DeLaRosa and Randall Winston Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. March 17, 2012 Governor
More informationComments on Treatment of Combined Heat and Power in EPA s Proposed Clean Power Plan Rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR
Background Comments on Treatment of Combined Heat and Power in EPA s Proposed Clean Power Plan Rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) Nov. 28, 2014 Combined
More informationModeling Distributed Generation Adoption Using Electric Rate Feedback Loops
Overview Modeling Distributed Generation Adoption Using Electric Rate Feedback Loops Mark Chew (Principal, Distributed Generation - m5ci@pge.com), Matt Heling, Colin Kerrigan, Dié (Sarah) Jin, Abigail
More informationers LIPA EFFICIENCY LONG ISLAND AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO 2012 PROGRAM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Final LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY
ers LIPA EFFICIENCY LONG ISLAND AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO 2012 PROGRAM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Final Prepared for: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY Prepared by: OPINION DYNAMICS CORPORATION AND ENERGY RESOURCE
More informationIncentivizing Solar Energy:
Executive Summary As part of Consumer Energy Alliance s all-of-the-above approach to meeting our nation s growing energy needs, we strongly support the expanded use of solar power. Diversifying our energy
More informationCEE NATIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION COMBINED HEAT & POWER. Gearoid Foley, Sr. Advisor DOE s Mid-Atlantic CHP TAP April 1, 2014
CEE NATIONAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION COMBINED HEAT & POWER Gearoid Foley, Sr. Advisor DOE s Mid-Atlantic CHP TAP April 1, 2014 Outline Who we are What is CHP Drivers & Applications Key Activities CHP Technical
More informationPart 1 Introduction and Overview
Part 1 Introduction and Overview A. Applicability: This Application for Customer Generation Cost Responsibility Surcharge (CRS) Tariff Exemptions (Application) is for the purpose of requesting an exemption
More informationSubmitted to: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
PECO Exhibit No. 1 PECO PROGRAM YEARS 2016-2020 ACT 129 - PHASE III ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION PLAN Submitted to: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Submitted by: November 30, 2015 Table of
More informationThe consumer and societal benefits of wind energy in Texas
The consumer and societal benefits of wind energy in Texas November 2014 Introduction Texas wind energy provides the state with $3.3 billion in societal benefits per year. These benefits include reducing
More informationRevised Overview of PV Inputs, Data Sources, and Potential Study Results
Date: September 28, 2012 To: From: Re: PacifiCorp Revised Overview of PV Inputs, Data Sources, and Potential Study Results Introduction, under contract to PacifiCorp, has calculated the predicted technical
More informationECE 333 GREEN ELECTRIC ENERGY 15. PV ECONOMICS
ECE 333 GREEN ELECTRIC ENERGY 15. PV ECONOMICS George Gross Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ECE 333 2002 2017 George Gross, University of Illinois
More informationRENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT STATE TAX POLICIES AND INCENTIVES IMPACTING
RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT STATE TAX POLICIES AND INCENTIVES IMPACTING RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES MARCH 2012 WASHINGTON Contents State Taxes
More informationInvestigation into the Effectiveness of. Solar Programs in Oregon
Investigation into the Effectiveness of Solar Programs in Oregon Prepared by: Public Utility Commission of Oregon July 1, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2893 directing
More informationWebinar: PG&E and Solar
Webinar: PG&E and Solar Matt Heling Program Manager Solar & Customer Generation Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 2 Webinar Goal Review PG&E programs and resources for solar technology, for projects on both:
More informationDistributed Generation
Distributed Generation November 2014 November 6, 2014 1 Forward-Looking Statements Leading the Way in Electricity SM Statements contained in this presentation about future performance, including, without
More informationTREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 8
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 8 From: Date: Subject: Staff February 20, 2009 Council Meeting Report on Florida Renewable Energy Potential
More informationSB 843 (WOLK) Community Based Renewable Energy Self Generation Program. Utility & Policy Maker Frequently Asked Questions
SB 843 (WOLK) Community Based Renewable Energy Self Generation Program Utility & Policy Maker Frequently Asked Questions What problem is SB 843 addressing? Access to renewable energy. The bill allows for
More informationCHAPTER 3: RESOURCE STRATEGY
Seventh Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan CHAPTER 3: RESOURCE STRATEGY Contents Key Findings... 3 A Resource Strategy for the Region... 3 Summary... 3 Scenario Analysis The Basis of the Resource
More informationXcel Energy Renewable Development Fund (RDF) Annual Report to the Minnesota State Legislature
Xcel Energy Renewable Development Fund (RDF) Annual Report to the Minnesota State Legislature February 13, 2015 Background The Renewable Development Fund (RDF) is a program administered by Xcel Energy
More informationViewpoint. Renewable portfolio standards and cost-effective energy efficiency investment
Viewpoint Renewable portfolio standards and cost-effective energy efficiency investment A. Mahone a, C.K. Woo a,b*, J. Williams a, I. Horowitz c a Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., 101 Montgomery
More informationPARTICIPANT HANDBOOK
2013-2014 PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STATEWIDE SAVINGS BY DESIGN PROGRAM Last Revised: January 15, 2014 www.savingsbydesign.com This program is funded by California
More informationDiablo Canyon Power Plant: Joint Proposal Overview. Tom Jones Director of Strategic Initiatives October 20, 2016
Diablo Canyon Power Plant: Joint Proposal Overview Tom Jones Director of Strategic Initiatives October 20, 2016 PG&E Service Territory We deliver natural gas and electric service to approximately 16 million
More informationCalifornia Energy Efficiency Potential Study
CALMAC Study ID: PGE0264.01 Submitted to: Pacific Gas & Electric Company Submitted by: Itron, Inc. 11236 El Camino Real San Diego, California 92130 (858) 724-2620 And KEMA, Inc. 492 Ninth St., #220 Oakland,
More informationU.S. Regional Approaches to Energy Policy and CO 2 Mitigation
U.S. Regional Approaches to Energy Policy and CO 2 Mitigation The California Experience Tom Bottorff Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Pacific Gas and Electric Company May 13, 2014 Topics for Discussion
More informationPower Contracting for Legacy Small Hydro Facilities in PGandE s Service Territory
Power Contracting for Legacy Small Hydro Facilities in PGandE s Service Territory Mark Henwood, CEO Henwood Associates, Inc. Sacramento, CA www.henwoodassociates.com March 19, 2013 New Contracts Required
More informationPolicy for determining capital contributions on Vector s electricity distribution networks. From 1 December 2017
Policy for determining capital contributions on Vector s electricity distribution networks From 1 December 2017 Pursuant to: Electricity Distribution Information Disclosure Determination 2012 1 Table of
More informationEnergy Efficiency. Energy Efficiency
OCE 1 st Revised Staff Straw Proposal for the NJCEP 2009 through 2012 Funding Levels Comprehensive Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resource Analysis March 20, 2008 On or about January 11, 2008,
More informationTDI-NE Responses to 83D Questions December 28, b. Type of Organization (Public/Industry/Advocacy/Other)
1. Please provide the following information with your comments: a. Name of Organization Champlain VT, LLC d/b/a TDI-NE b. Type of Organization (Public/Industry/Advocacy/Other) Industry (Merchant Transmission
More informationPhase 2 of 2018 General Rate Case Revenue Allocation Proposals
Application No.: Exhibit No.: Witnesses: A.17-06-00 SCE-0 R. Pardo R. Thomas (U 8-E) Phase of 018 General Rate Case Revenue Allocation Proposals Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
More information..H;:jc 2iCT is i:,:2e
..H;:jc 2iCT is i:,:2e STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE Docket No. DE 1 6-5 76 RE: ALTERNATIVE NET METERING DOCKET PREFILED TESTIMONY OF CONSUMER ENERGY
More informationPotential Impacts of a Renewable and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in Kentucky
Potential Impacts of a Renewable and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in Kentucky Prepared for the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development & the Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance
More informationSENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY 218th LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE FISCAL ESTIMATE SENATE, No. 2314 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 218th LEGISLATURE DATED: APRIL 11, 2018 SUMMARY Synopsis: Types of Impact: Agencies Affected: Establishes and modifies clean energy and
More information2009 Power Smart Plan
2009 Power Smart Plan July 2009 *Manitoba Hydro is a licensee of the Official Mark Executive Summary The 2009 Power Smart Plan forecasts Manitoba Hydro s costs and savings to the benchmark year of 2024/25
More informationSustainable Energy Management
Sustainable Energy Management Achieving Energy Independence at Wastewater Utilities Dru Whitlock, PE 1 Global Renewable Energy Drivers Climate Change (Global Environmental Issues) Global Economic Downturn
More informationThe economic benefits of wind energy in the Southwest Power Pool
The economic benefits of wind energy in the Southwest Power Pool November 2014 Introduction Wind energy provides the Southwest Power Pool region (Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and parts of New Mexico, Texas,
More informationProposal Concerning Modifications to LIPA s Tariff for Electric Service
Proposal Concerning Modifications to LIPA s Tariff for Electric Service Requested Action: The Long Island Power Authority ( LIPA ) staff proposes revisions to the LIPA Tariff for Electric Service to authorize
More informationPolicy for determining capital contributions on Vector s electricity distribution networks. From 1 February 2016
Policy for determining capital contributions on Vector s electricity distribution networks From 1 February 2016 Pursuant to: Electricity Distribution Information Disclosure Determination 2012 1 Table of
More informationTémoignage de Mme Judy W. Chang de The Brattle Group sur la politique d'ajouts au réseau de transport
Demande R--0 Témoignage de Mme Judy W. Chang de The Brattle Group sur la politique d'ajouts au réseau de transport Original : 0-0-0 HQT-, Document En liasse Policy on Network Upgrades Direct Testimony
More information